Podcast Summary

Podcast & Episode Details

• Podcast: New Books Network
• Host: Jen Hoyer
• Guest: Dr. Elif Kalaycioglu, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Alabama
• Topic/Book: The Politics of World Heritage: Visions, Custodians, and Futures of Humanity (Oxford UP, 2025)
• Date: October 30, 2025

Episode Overview

This in-depth conversation explores Dr. Elif Kalaycioglu’s book on the politics underpinning the UNESCO World Heritage regime. Tracing the 50-year journey of this global program, the episode investigates how claims to "outstanding universal value" shape what is recognized as humanity’s shared heritage, revealing crucial questions about politics, historical narratives, power, and identity. Through case studies, archival work, and interviews, Dr. Kalaycioglu challenges listeners to understand how world heritage is far from neutral and is deeply entangled with international recognition, state interests, and contested visions of the past and future.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Personal and Academic Background (02:09)

• Dr. Kalaycioglu introduces herself as an assistant professor with roots in Istanbul, Turkey and an academic background in global politics.
  • Quote: “I pursue my research, which focuses on the role that cultural and historical resources play in the conduct of global politics.” (02:23)
• Her fascination with World Heritage as a site of global rather than merely local or national politics was sparked during her PhD after witnessing the international reaction to the destruction of Palmyra by ISIS.
  • Quote: “What about this site could generate this kind of emotional attachment… people saying even though they’d never been, this site held importance for them and they suffered its loss and its destruction.” (03:53)

2. Why World Heritage? International Relations Perspective (03:37)

• World Heritage serves as a powerful site for international prestige, cultural diplomacy, and state-led narratives.
• Recognition is highly sought; sites become vehicles for projecting visions of national and global futures (e.g., China's Silk Roads project).
• There is tension in explaining the relevance of seemingly “cultural” politics in a discipline dominated by discussions of security and economics.
  • Quote: “States ardently pursue things such as international cultural recognition and prestige... and use these resources to craft narratives of desirable futures.” (05:14)

3. Methodology: How to Study World Heritage (07:26)

• Mix of archival research, meeting observations, text analysis, and interviews.
  • Analyzed nomination files, expert evaluations, and committee meeting records dating from 1978 to 2024.
  • Differentiation between the roles of experts (e.g., ICOMOS) and state actors.
  • Interviews reveal differences: experts are discrete and technical, while state delegates are more candid about motivations.
  • Quote: “I approach the texts as actually holders of those representations... constructing this narrative of humanity’s cultural history attached to particular sites.” (08:38)
  • Handwritten archival moments, e.g., early UNESCO’s attention to avoiding Eurocentrism.

4. Defining the ‘Politics of Humanity’ (14:07)

• Concept: Politics authorized by an idea of “humanity” and actively working to construct it as a subject of global concern.
• Since WWII, “humanity”—not just nations—emerges as a formal entity in global governance (UN, ICC, UNESCO).
• Mechanisms like the World Heritage List are constitutive: by naming certain sites as humanity’s heritage, they bring “humanity” as a subject into being.
  • Quote: “I define politics of humanity as a kind of politics that is authorized by an idea of humanity and that works to bring it into being.” (14:14)
• Raises pressing questions:
  • Whose heritage is valued as “universal”?
  • Who are the custodians/deciders?
  • How do power imbalances, colonial legacies, and contentious histories persist?
• Challenges the idea that internationalism or “cosmopolitan” heritage is neutral or equally accessible.

5. Three Eras of World Heritage – Evolution of ‘Humanity’

I. Era 1: Humanity as a ‘Rarefied Subject’ (1972–1994)

• The “UNESCO World Heritage regime” begins in 1972: states nominate, experts evaluate, committee decides.
• Early focus: Monumentality, aesthetic genius, and masterworks of civilization (cathedrals, palaces, ruins).
  • Eurocentric and “civilizationally” skewed, privileging grand, monumental, and “developmental” sites.
  • Quote: “Monumentality is just fundamental to how men’s creative genius is evaluated at this time... things like ambition, audacity, daring undertaking.” (25:01)
• Non-monumental, vernacular, and Indigenous sites mostly excluded.
  • Example: Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park—initially not recognized as cultural heritage.
• Decisions driven by a tight circle of Western art historians and archaeologists.

II. Era 2: Humanity as a ‘Diverse, Horizontal Community’ (1994–2010)

• Triggered by dissatisfaction about Eurocentrism and exclusion, plus new expert perspectives from France, Australia, Canada, and regional actors.
• 1994: Launch of the “Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List.”
  • Quote: “There was a new sort of cadre of experts that said we need to take this beyond Europe…” (31:21)
• Focus expands to vernacular, “living heritage,” sacred, spiritual, and non-monumental sites—especially Indigenous sites.
  • Example: Uluru re-classified as a mixed site; Zanzibar recognized for cultural diversity.
  • Critique: Risk of entrenching hierarchies (primitivism/civilized binaries), challenges in adjudicating universal value among incomparable histories.
  • Quote (On risk): “Others are a lot more cautious and they're worried that offering these sites onto the list is only going to reproduce prejudices of quote, unquote primitive versus again, quote unquote civilized culture.” (35:35)

III. Era 3: ‘States as Humanity’ (2010–present)

• Post-2010 marks a “critical juncture”—states, especially Global South and BRICS, assert more control and resent expert dominance.
  • Backlash over unfulfilled promises of “balanced” representation.
  • States begin regularly overturning expert recommendations, marginalizing non-state actors.
  • Example: The 2010 WHC meeting in Brazil; Russia, China, Egypt lead push for states as primary adjudicators.
• Quote: “This is when states, sort of state delegations increasingly position themselves and each other as adjudicators, contributors and custodians of World Heritage... and it begins to really sideline other actors.” (39:19)
• Tension: States want international prestige but risk undermining regime legitimacy by reducing process to state interests alone.
  • “They don’t just say we should sort of inscribe or register this site because it’s of national value... they try to recreate this world in terms of, no, this is about humanity because this is universally valuable.” (44:00)
• List expansion becomes more about overriding expert dissent rather than introducing new types of sites.

6. Contemporary Challenges: Is World Heritage Broken? (46:18)

• The regime faces a crisis: increased nominations of politically sensitive and recent conflict sites (Rwandan genocide, Khmer Rouge, etc.).
• Dangers:
  • Risk of one-sided or victor’s narratives being institutionalized and silencing alternative memories.
  • Expert bodies like ICOMOS may lack skills for dealing with “sites of conscience.”
• Ambivalence:
  • World Heritage offers platforms for civil society, grassroots actors—but is also subject to state instrumentalization.
  • Quote (on ambivalence): “It creates these spaces of use and abuse for some states, but then it can also create these opportunities of voice amplification for grassroots, Indigenous or smaller state actors that would otherwise not find those platforms.” (51:22)
• Memorable Interviewee Quote: “If the toy breaks, no one can play with it.” (46:18)

7. Looking Forward: Dr. Kalaycioglu’s Upcoming Research (52:53)

• Continuing work on contested heritage sites, unsettled boundaries, and narratives around conflict sites (e.g., Turkey-Armenia border, Silk Roads).
  • “I am really kind of picking up where the book leaves off. So I have an ongoing research project on contested heritage and that includes, again, sites on unsettled boundaries or sites with difficult histories.” (53:10)
• Focus on how international institutions can stabilize state narratives, marginalize others—or create space for alternative voices.

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• On the emotional power of World Heritage:
  “What about this site could generate this kind of emotional attachment… people saying even though they’d never been, this site held importance for them and they suffered its loss and its destruction.” (03:53)

• On why states invest in World Heritage:
  “States ardently pursue things such as international cultural recognition and prestige... and use these resources to craft narratives of desirable futures.” (05:14)

• On methodology:
  “I approach the texts as actually holders of those representations... constructing this narrative of humanity’s cultural history attached to particular sites.” (08:38)

• Defining the ‘politics of humanity’:
  “I define politics of humanity as a kind of politics that is authorized by an idea of humanity and that works to bring it into being.” (14:14)

• On early Eurocentrism:
  “Monumentality is just fundamental to how men’s creative genius is evaluated at this time...” (25:01)

• On the paradigm shift:
  “There was a new sort of cadre of experts that said we need to take this beyond Europe…” (31:21)

• On the risk of reproducing hierarchies:
  “They’re worried that offering these sites onto the list is only going to reproduce prejudices of quote, unquote primitive versus again, quote unquote civilized culture.” (35:35)

• On state dominance post-2010:
  “This is when states, sort of state delegations increasingly position themselves and each other as adjudicators, contributors and custodians of World Heritage... and it begins to really sideline other actors.” (39:19)

• On the current ambivalence:
  “It creates these spaces of use and abuse for some states, but then it can also create these opportunities of voice amplification for grassroots, Indigenous or smaller state actors that would otherwise not find those platforms.” (51:22)

Memorable Moments

• The destruction of Palmyra (03:37): Sparked host and guest’s fascination with how distant people feel ownership over “global heritage.”
• Archival gem (25:01): Discovering a UNESCO Director General’s handwritten marginalia, warning against Eurocentrism, and seeing it go unheeded.
• Critical juncture at the 2010 Committee Meeting in Brazil (39:19): Where the tone of state vs. expert power fundamentally shifted.
• The “If the toy breaks…” metaphor (46:18): Captures the delicate balance—if the regime loses legitimacy, everyone loses.
• Bikini Atoll (50:01): File exemplifies how marginal/traumatic sites can powerfully invoke a shared but unequal humanity.

Important Timestamps

• 02:09 – Guest introduction and academic background
• 03:37 – Motivation for studying World Heritage; Palmyra example
• 07:26 – Research methodology
• 14:07 – Defining the “politics of humanity”
• 22:41 – Era 1: Humanity as rarefied subject; early regime
• 30:32 – Era 2: Shift to diversity, inclusive of vernacular, spiritual sites
• 38:12 – Era 3: States as humanity; end of expert dominance
• 46:18 – Is the regime broken? Dangers of new conflict sites
• 52:53 – Next projects: contested heritage, Silk Road, competing narratives

Conclusion

This episode delivers a nuanced, global, and historically layered understanding of the UNESCO World Heritage program and the contest over "humanity’s heritage." Through Dr. Kalaycioglu’s original research and sensitive analysis, listeners are encouraged to question what seems objective or neutral and to understand world heritage as a tightly interwoven fabric of politics, power, memory, and global ambition—simultaneously exclusionary and empowering.